November 15, 2009

Perhaps Palin has chosen not to share all of her thinking and calculations with the reading public.

Perhaps? But of course! Or she's a blithering idiot.

She is obviously in part trying to even the score with Katie Couric ("I was just trying to help her because she was in the dumps over her faltering career," says the rising star to the declining one) and Nicolle what's-her-name ("she was disloyal to W, i.e. a complete bitch, had I but seen it at the time"). Palin is portraying herself as a lamb among wolves. This does not necessarily mean she really was or is in fact a lamb, except in the sense that she is a lot cuter than her critics.

The question isn't whether she's posing/whitewashing/slanting/lying. She's doing something like that, and the current product, the book, gives us evidence of the extent of her political intelligence. Is saying I was a lamb smart now? That's a separate question — and one my post addressed — than saying was it smart to be a lamb then, assuming she actually was a lamb. Breaking the issue down that way, I'd say she was at least either dumb then or dumb now. But maybe you think posing as a former lamb is savvy politics. Or is that only because you think she's cute? Because I don't think being thought cute and inspiring male protectors is the way to get yourself elected President.

Consider how an accurate memoir would read: "I miscalculated. Early on, I understood the McCain campaign was unlikely to win, but I thought I could use it to promote my own career as a national conservative voice and perhaps as future presidential candidate. I had little expertise in dealing with the national media, so I thought it best to rely on the McCain people for that, reasoning they had no incentive to feed me to the wolves. etc. etc." The reader would think, why that Machiavellian bitch!

A first-rate Machiavellian bitch wouldn't say that in exactly those words. But she would say that. Elegantly, seductively — like a real Machiavellian. And I would be inspired: There is someone smart and sophisticated enough to deserve a major party nomination for President. I want that Machiavellian bitch on our side.

... [T]he question is not, is the woman Palin portrays qualified to be President, but rather, is a woman who would decide to portray herself as Palin has decided to do in her book, qualified to be President -- a very different question.

Yes. That is what I think too. I attempted to convey that in my "Sarah Palin is dumb" post, but in case I didn't make it clear enough, I am restating it here. A political memoir has a political strategy to it. If it told the whole truth, it would probably be only because for some odd reason the absolute, unspun truth best served the author's interest or — does this ever happen? — because the erstwhile politico has transmorphed into a literary artist.

***

Now, I wrote this whole post before I noticed that Tom Smith never linked to my post! He does begin with "Regarding Professor Rappaport's post immediately below" — Lord, what a boring first clause! — not that he links to Prof R's post — and Prof R does link to me. But that really is bad form, and then there's also the very weird fact that the one link Smith does have is to a YouTube video of Michelle Pfeiffer singing "Making Whoopie" (and writhing on a piano in a tight red dress). Why was that apt? It went with:

[J]ust because Palin says she was a lamb among wolves does not mean she is in fact a lamb. I sort of like the idea of her singing "I'm a poor little lamb who's lost my way" along the lines of Michelle Pfeiffer in the Fabulous Baker Boys, but that is of course an unrelated point.

I kind of think it is related. And no woman like that is going to make it to the presidency, though she may win a lot of admirers and protectors. Lord have mercy on such as we... baa... baa... baa...

***

Those lost lambs are so much sexier than Pfeiffer's embodiment of male fantasy, I will say.

While she may never qualify for MENSA, I think a woman who can go from housewife to state governor has a few active neurons going for her.

My wife has a line she likes to use about blondes (herself being one), "We are dumb, but we are smart". Assume what she says in the book is disingenuous; like Reagan and Dubya, she could just be baiting the trap.

WV "abbeal" What you want to get from a higher court after your conviction when you have a bad cold.

Wow. Althouse is green with jealousy, and seems to spin everything about Palin as males being sexually protective of her.

"Because I don't think being thought cute and inspiring male protectors is the way to get yourself elected President."

Sad.

How about the concept that we might agree with her political stance and world view? Or that people can admire her courage and determination?

Since I haven't read the book and neither has Althouse (I presume), maybe we should hold off on reviewing and dissecting it?

In addition: An autobiography is all about a "Point of View" that is obviously from the viewpoint of the writer. Whether you or anyone else agrees with her point of view.....it IS hers. It isn't up to us to say that a person's POV is invalid.

Why would it be dumb/stupid to say something along the lines of "I was naive and got fooled/sucked in/used, but now I realize it and won't make that mistake again"? Personally, I would consider this admission a smart thing. Only really stupid people keep making the same decisions and expecting different outcomes.

Everyone makes some dumb choices during their lives. Some of those choices, like a first marriage, may have seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but upon reflection and personal growth you might realize that the decision you made was not good at the time. The DUMB thing to do is to not realize or admit that you have made a bad decision or that your first marriage was not wonderful. The DUMB thing is to keep doing the same things and not admitting mistakes.

How nice that some people can always always make good perfect decisions. I don't think that Althouse is one of those people and neither am I or most likely any of the other posters on this blog or the people who have nothing good to say about Palin.

Sarah Palin's crime is that she gives off a lower middle class and even working class vibe. Althouse & Company will either adjust to an unsightly President Palin in 2012 or be steamed for the next 8 years.

Of course Palin is unsuited to be President. But then again so is the present POTUS. I don't think it takes a book, particularly an autobiography, to convince the majority of Americans (including wingnuts such as me) that she would be ill suited for that office.

A far more interesting question would be: why is there such a noticeable difference in tone between male and female reactions to this woman. (He wrote, generalizing like crazy, but hey it saves time, no?) In my experience woman don't dislike her, they seemingly want to destroy her. Men, for the most part, can dislike her, or believe her to be unqualified for higher office, but can state their objections to her without throwing a hissy fit, while foaming at the mouth, that women seem to be so prone to with regards to this good lady.

Surely this could be an appropriate area of study for all those feminine studies departments that have sprung up like weeds throughout academia. Put it on the curriculum: “Sarah Palin – Dumb or Dumber?”

So, do I get points for stating in the first "Palin is dumb" post that you were really complaining that she should lie better given the time and access to expert help available while writing a book?

At any rate, not everyone thinks that way.

We could posit, instead, that her apparent candor proves her political savvy in relation to her base, who generally doesn't think that the ability to lie the best is the most important qualification for public office.

In my experience woman don't dislike her, they seemingly want to destroy her. Men, for the most part, can dislike her, or believe her to be unqualified for higher office, but can state their objections to her without throwing a hissy fit, while foaming at the mouth, that women seem to be so prone to with regards to this good lady.

Not all women feel this way. I certainly don't. You are making stereotypes based on people like Dowd and others who DO NOT represent women in general.

I think it is insecure women who can't stand the idea that another woman can come from oustide of their special clique of urban, professional, rabid feminism. They also resent her because she is good looking. It is high school level girls hating other girls nastiness. Palin is an outsider and doesn't kow tow to the Alpha Girls and they just can't stand that.

I think ContraMan's point is that those who do seek to destroy her are most viscious when they are of the same gender.

But it's interesting to see the venom being used to destroy her. The attempt is made to marginalize her as "dumb" and "unsophisticated" and "Caribou Barbie," and yet if she's so insignificant and unfit for office -- why all the powerful guns being used against her? We swat at flies; we don't shoot them with elephant guns.

The more the left proclaims that Palin is not a worthwhile opponent, the more she grows in estimation and power.

I think ContraMan's point is that those who do seek to destroy her are most viscious when they are of the same gender.

Well... that is true,it seems. Women can be vicious and nasty to other women. Touchy and difficult to deal with rationally. This is why I have always gotten along much better in a work environment with men.

P.S. If any Palin supporters would like to actually do something, here's a partial list of smears against Sarah Palin. Not differences of opinion, but lies and misleading statements. When one of those listed states an opinion, come back at them (such as in comments) with the link from that page, pointing out to their readers that they aren't trustworthy. And, on your site, link one of those persons' names to the corresponding entry.

For instance, some of the usual noisemakers (i.e., Steyn, Powerline) have discussed the AP "fact-check" of her book that featured 11 AP writers. While the first was at least bright enough to parenthetically list the writers involved, he didn't link to any "dossiers" on those writers. If he had done so, he could have encouraged them to be less biased.

So, if I discussed the "fact check", I'd point out that one of the writers involved - Garance Burke - wrote a previous story that the ADN called "remarkably skewed".

not to quibble too much, but do you really think anyone is neutral on Palin? Most people have made up their minds already. She is "dumb" because she said "I can see Russia from my house!" (as a leftist proclaimed triumphantly on another thread).

So feel free to speculate about the validity of comments about Palin. Me, I don't think one single review will be fairly about the book: it will be about Palin, about the author's visceral reaction to her, and if it's published in the MSM, it will be uniformly panned and derided.

You can have the hope and change. Me, I'm the cynical realist in this.

A book priced at $29.00, arbitrary I know, reduced to $9.00 in pre-sale. Wut up widat? Oh, I know.

I'm not going to buy this book and no one can make me.

Instead, here's where I totally jack, there's another book called The Big Fat Duck Cookbook originally priced at $157.00 reduced from $250.00. It was recently re-released in a new less extravagant but still TOTALLY AWESOME version as Fat Duck Cookbookfor $31.50. See? The "Big" is left out, and it doesn't come in a sleeve. Now there's a book for you! It's not useful at all, of course, but it does show ya like nothing else does what other people get up to. It blows my mind. The book divided into three sections, history, restaurant recipes, equipment / specialized ingredients. It's all there BANG! in one book. The whole truth, this time. Except for some of the artistic photographs which are false -- artistic photographic representations of the idea behind the dish, like the one of the snail sliding off the green stick of butter for example, that sort of thing can throw ya off a little. Sometimes the artistic photography actually prevents the reader from understanding the dish.

In the book, each item on the tasting menu has on average five or six separate somewhat extravagant steps.

Incidentally, this is the celebrated three star restaurant in Brey recently closed due to a mysterious outbreak of illness reported by as many as 400 separate patrons and costing Blumenthal, the owner, up to $140,000 a week. (The tasting menu cost $185.00, which is actually a lot less than I was imagining considering what goes into it.)

Here's another example. When Anne Kornblut of the WaPo writes something, leave a comment on her post asking her why she solicited difficult questions for Palin, but didn't seem interested in asking BHO anything very difficult at all.

If reporters know that they're going to be the story - and their journalistic pretentions are going to be shown for what they are - many of them will realize they have to do better reporting.

You want cynical realism? How about this: I think there are plenty of people (does this include you?), including Palin supporters, who don't WANT the book to actually be read, much less fairly read, and who, in fact, are quite vested in keeping the view of not just Palin's book, but Palin herself, strictly polarized.

From where I sit, it realistically appears that fanning the overreactions of both kinds to Palin cynically serves at least what is perceived as the political interests of both the far right and far left.

"I think it is insecure women who can't stand the idea that another woman can come from oustide of their special clique of urban, professional, rabid feminism. They also resent her because she is good looking. It is high school level girls hating other girls nastiness. Palin is an outsider and doesn't kow tow to the Alpha Girls and they just can't stand that."

And nowhere will you find such perpetual adolescence as in academia, media, Hollywood, or anywhere else ruled by the left.

I am glad you are holding your fire in your opinion. You are indeed unique in this (and I'm not saying this sarcastically).

I've met no one else - at work or in my community - who hasn't already made up his mind about Palin or who hasn't already decided whether the book is dreck or scripture.

Me? I'm an early admirer of Palin from before her nomination. While I was pleased and surprised by her nomination, I wasn't caught unaware her personality and values. I was surprised, however, at the level of hatred expressed at her by men & women that I thought might give her a chance.

Most people at the time of the nomination were untaught about what to think about her. The Republicans tried hard to beat the MSM in the message, but the MSM quickly found its feet and began to excoriate her, the leftists quickly joined forces in lockstep, and the right then quickly coalesced in response.

So I will amend my statement that there is a tiny remnant who hasn't already decided that she can do no wrong or no right.

And I suspect that a lot of those who claim to be disinterested are simply hiding their real judgments about Palin.

She's really just a philosophical and political mirror: people see what they want in her.

"That's a separate question — and one my post addressed — than saying was it smart to be a lamb then, assuming she actually was a lamb. Breaking the issue down that way, I'd say she was at least either dumb then or dumb now. But maybe you think posing as a former lamb is savvy politics."

I think that "former lamb" is a self-evident reality and if she claimed to have been something other than a lamb we'd *all* come to the conclusion that she was terminally stupid.

It's "dumb" to say something people will not believe.

And it's worse than "dumb" to have gone into that campaign as something other than a lamb because it means she saw and accepted the abuse of her own family. Had they been left *alone* (and the "rule" was "leave the children out of it) Levi might actually be at their house for Thanksgiving and involved in the life of his baby and Letterman would never have made a joke about her child being raped (haha! it's a *joke* people!).

So how terminally stupid, or selfish, or generally disgusting, would a real person have to be to look at all of that and *chose* to promote herself by accepting the VP nomination?

Some measure of "lamb" is the only way she's not a disgusting person.

"Or is that only because you think she's cute? Because I don't think being thought cute and inspiring male protectors is the way to get yourself elected President..."

Since I specifically said in the last post about this that I blamed McCain for not defending her and her children I'll answer this this way.

If Palin was a man being personally attacked and if she was a man with children who were being personally attacked... I would condemn McCain for not defending him, too.

What was directed at Palin and her children was not just the same old rough and tumble politics that men have to put up with all the time. And men are expected to show loyalty.

What we saw was Palin attempting to promote McCain from her position as his VP and him not returning the favor.

If we appreciate and laud Machiavellianism in our elected people, think of it this way: The treatment of Palin's children was a missed opportunity for McCain to attack the Obama campaign and discredit it.

Oh, and Palin is cute.

At the point where we can have a campaign for President without making frequent reference to Obama's hunkiness and McCain's limited range of motion and chipmunk face, this just MIGHT be a feminist cause to fuss over.

"And I would be inspired: There is someone smart and sophisticated enough to deserve a major party nomination for President. I want that Machiavellian bitch on our side."

Palin wasn't lucky enough to have her own Bill Ayers to write her memoir. Apparently "Hopeful Dreams From My Audacious Father" (or whatever the other party's candidate's vanity memoir[s] was called) was sufficiently disingenuous and cynical to motivate you to vote for him.

Me? I'm tired of personal narrative candidates. I want a president with a nice boring life who subsumes their audacious narratives and rogue impulses into their role as manager of the United States. But of course it's never going to be like that again. The 19th Amendment and television fixed that.

wv: alkeymic. The mystical process by which one takes cynical deception, political ambition, and incompetence, puts them into an alembic and, using the Philosopher's Stone, transmutes those base materials into Barack Obama. Take the same materials except substitute naivete for cynical deception and you get Sarah Palin in your retort.

Professor Althouse, you're such a reasonable person, why is it that you spit pure vitriol whenever you mention Sarah Palin? It's one thing to disagree with her politics, but calling her a "blithering idiot" is purely hateful hyperbole. You fall into the same camp as the Obama-wet-dream cretin.

“The truth is, she refused to prepare for the Katie Couric interview,” the adviser continued. “She refused to engage in any preparation. And it was a disaster.”

The adviser also mocked a contradiction at the core of Palin’s claims: She’s simultaneously saying she was muzzled and kept from the press, even as she’s claiming she only did the Couric interview at the urging of McCain aides.

“You were prevented from talking to all these reporters, and you’re mad about that,” the adviser said, chortling incredulously. “But you’re also mad about the interviews you did. It’s so full of contradictions that you don’t know where to begin.” .

Ann, you admitted that you felt protective of Obama because he was younger than you, you had a son, and you naturally wanted him to succeed. Why can't a woman have this?

Obama had a MILLION young male protectors -vicious ones. Man crushes everywhere. Andrew Sullivan still has one. That's a form of protection - a kind of dog pack mentality where you go belly up for the leader. You are interpreting it negatively because it's a woman - but women will be stalled if they can't leverage their charisma like the guys can.

I love that she has "male protectors". I loved seeing blue collar conservative guys being that supportive of a female candidate instead of tearing her apart. I saw them as fans or followers rather than protectors, but guys fight for their side.

How many liberal guys did I see wearing "Palin is a Cunt" t-shirts? Hillary, too. That was a protection of Obama by attacking Palin/Clinton with misogyny because it was the nearest handy rock to thump her over the head.

Sarah Palin is not the best candidate for the POTUS in 2012. I fear that the same people who put Mike Huckabee in serious contention for the nomination in 2008 will do the same for Sarah Palin in 2012.

Yeah, but no one knows why teenage girls are so vicious. They just are. And grow up to be vicious women. They just do. Some mysteries you just have to live with. Unless you are most of the women on this thread, who say No! No! it's not true, women aren't like that. Why does common wisdom have to be thrown out to appease modern superstition? The female is deadlier than the male. C'mon gals, you know that. Fess up.

Silence, Alpha. You need to worry more about the Weimar Dollar that your Dear Leader is creating:

The McCain people refused to put her on Rush and Hannity because, as professional Washington G.O.P. Ass Clowns, they had nothing but contempt and slight regard for Movement Conservatives like Rush and Hannity, even though Sarah's job as VP was to make sure the Base got to the polls for a Candidate they did not like.

This was an interview, not a Vice Presidential Debate. Palin shouldn't have had to prep for Katie Couric. She did poorly. She argued that they shouldn't go back, but the campaign team wanted her to go back.

This crowd reminds me of Bush/Quayle 1992, the previous World Champions for feckless incompetence and backstabbing. They are good at one thing: pimping their resumes. Palin's memoir is getting pushback not because she is lying (which she isn't) but because she is exposing the McCain team for the dishonest hacks who shook down John McCain, U.S. Senator and former P.O.W., for every honest cent he had.

McCain has read his copy of the memoir. You will notice in coming days the studied silence from the Senator. He knows that he got taken to the cleaners by his own people. He also knows he wants Sarah to campaign for him, but that's a side issue.

Wow, this is becoming idiotic. Since when does any auto-biography contain the unvarnished truth? Wouldn't that make for an insanely boring read? The unvarnished truth would have to record EVERYTHING.

Even then, what is The Unvarnished Truth? Tom's thinking is that of a tenth grader, assuming there is but one truth and everyone has enough information to see it. Sorry, but that's not how life is.

BTW, in this context, one big irony is that while the McCain camp clearly treated Palin like shit, she is still indebted to them for bringing her a visibility she would never have obtained otherwise. (On the other hand, had she worked up the political scene in a methodical way, finally arriving at national visibility in her late fifties or so, she probably would have been more prepared.)

I still don't know enough about Palin yet to decide if she's smart or dumb. On the smart side are her writings about health care reform, "Death Panels" and all. On the dumb side is her resignation speech: it made no sense, and she kept using the term "lame duck" inappropriately. It is indeed hard for me to believe the same person is responsible for both.

I will concede Palin is dumb if she runs for political office again. Because quitting only a couple years into her term as governor sealed that. She cannot expect voters to put their trust and confidence in her again. I wouldn't do it.

Now if she doesn't run again, then quitting was actually a brilliant move. Because she's out there raking it in, and having a say without all the inconveniences of elected office. She gave the finger to politics, and "went rogue," so to speak. Good for her, and I have no problem with that.

I have been waiting for something like the brilliance of her convention speech, and she hasn't delivered. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) is more impressive off the top of his head on Red Eye. So I will admit that I've been disappointed in that respect as well. But still not conceding yet on the dumb thing. All the right people ridicule her. So she's doing something right.

As an aside, I know Obama is not the issue here, but I do think Palin is--inexplicably--being held to a much higher standard. V. weird but whatever.

The problem with Machiavellian bitches ( and bastards ) is that they are never on your side, they are only ever on their own side. If their goals coincide with yours then they may be useful to you. ( Or, if they are a politician looking for your vote, you may be useful to them. ) But you certainly can't trust that they will act in your or the country's best interests.

I must admit I'd love to have a president named "Thaddeus McCotter." It sounds so 1840s.

Personally I hope Sarah Palin doesn't have any plans to run for office again. I think she'll be more of a success in the background, raking in the speaking fees and driving the liberals nuts. She could become a female Rush Limbaugh. (Considering the way liberals foam at the mouth over her, she already is.)

I guess all of the professors' newly qualified psychoanalysts never heard of the concept of constructive criticism. Sarah displayed a fault without telling us what she's doing to eliminate it in the future. This is dumb. As I've said before, if you portray yourself as a victim, who will picture you as a winner? Who wants to have a victim leading our nation?

Why did Palin reveal her dumbitude? Why did she write this memoir at all? Usually Presidents wait till their terms are over before they bare their souls to the public. (Ford, Clinton, et al.) The only thing I can think of is that Palin wanted to cash in on her two months of fame, before she becomes a vague and distant memory.

Now, Obama did write a memoir, long before he became President. The difference is that Obama's memoir was a bildungsroman . His follies were the follies of youth. Now, at middle age, he can look at them and ruefully shake his head.

We interupt this Palin palaver for a moment for these important questions...Is that Woody Allen without a tuxedo, fifth from the left, in the Whiffenpoof picture?...If so, why is he there? Why no tuxedo? Was he attending Yale's Maplethorpe Memorial Muslim Cartoon Burning Festival at the time?...Now let's go back to our regularly scheduled commentary without end on THAT WOMAN.

careen said..."Ann, you admitted that you felt protective of Obama because he was younger than you, you had a son, and you naturally wanted him to succeed. Why can't a woman have this?"

I can't find the old post where I said this, but I'm pretty sure it's in there somewhere. I'm virtually certain that I was being self-deprecating, so I feel unencumbered making fun of folks who are enthused about Sarah for the wrong reasons. I certainly didn't vote for Obama because of these stray maternal feelings. If I thought that was influencing me, I would fight against it.

In the case of Palin, however, I am saying that this emotional effect can only get Palin so far. It's a trap.

Women are harsher critics of other women. For some, a certain woman's success diminishes their own accomplishments and for some others that woman's failure (perhaps not of her own making) threatens their ownsuccesses. Typical minority (though not in numbers) behavior.

That said, I am glad to see Palin making money off of the awfulposition she was put in. I think Hillary should write about whathappened during the Dem. primary and the convention and caucuses. She would make 100s of millions. 18 million+ times 20 (or 30) at least.

Sarah displayed a fault without telling us what she's doing to eliminate it in the future. This is dumb

You've read the book? Or are you just making shit up?

Why did she write this memoir at all? Usually Presidents wait till their terms are over before they bare their souls to the public.

Yes, most do wait, unlike Oblabla who wrote his memoirs before he had accomplished anything. Double standard much?

She probably wrote her memoir to try to straighten out the out and out lies and distortions that creeps like you on the left heap upon her and her family. If it were me....I would want to beat you all mercilessly about the head with the book.....literally.

I think it is insecure women who can't stand the idea that another woman can come from oustide of their special clique of urban, professional, rabid feminism. They also resent her because she is good looking. It is high school level girls hating other girls nastiness. Palin is an outsider and doesn't kow tow to the Alpha Girls and they just can't stand that.

Not all women have an emotional response to a woman like Palin as you assess. You are right however about her being an outsider if you mean ‘different kind of feminism’.

I admired her for this though it was impossible to determine initially which was the real Pain and when the situation was being managed. That didn’t become apparent until the interviews where her lack of knowledge became apparent and she tried to cover it. If the McCain people had handled her completely differently so that she didn’t feel she had to ‘go rogue’ and jump into interviews with her foot in her mouth, the outcome could have been completely different. Problem was she didn’t have the intuitive sense to stop talking before she hit quicksand. When she let herself be managed as she did for the debate she did quite well.

That first 2-3 weeks Mc Cain had a huge advantage. She was intriguing and her ‘take no prisoners ‘approach worked very well. I loved that she truly seemed to be someone different from the Washington circle. If she had been more intelligent in her interviews or had the savvy to respond to the ‘what do read’ questions another way things would have been a lot more interesting.

It sure would be interesting to see how things evolved with the current situation(s) in Washington had McCain/Palin won.

Sarah displayed a fault without telling us what she's doing to eliminate it in the future. This is dumb

You've read the book? Or are you just making shit up?

The facts are all on Althouse's excerpt. Despite her misgivings, Palin allowed her handler to schedule an interview with Katie Couric, using for an argument the same kind of "you have a lot in common" verbiage that people use to match two friends. Palin passively accepts "their" insistence she not mention Homeland Security.

Unable to confront her handlers, and unable to even broach the matter with McCain, Palin sneaks around behind McCain's and the campaign's back, and tries to arrange interviews with friendly media creatures.

So, Palin is passive, weak, and a sneak. She doesn't even see these as flaws, much less something that she needs to eradicate from her personality.

FLS: Sarah displayed a fault without telling us what she's doing to eliminate it in the future. This is dumb

Me: You've read the book? Or are you just making shit up?

FLS: The facts are all on Althouse's excerpt

So you are making shit up then (that Palin hasn't said what she will do in the future) because you haven't read the book.

I don't care one way or the other particularly and have no comment on her book because I haven't seen it IN ITS ENTIRETY and refuse to make a judgement on selected snippets and other people's opinions, many of whom have animus or who are fans of Palin.

However, you can't say that Palin hasn't said something in her book, when you haven't read the book.

That is making shit up. Admit it.

After you read the book and I have read the book, then you can discuss. Until then.....making shit up.

I do "my own" research on these types of topics and in my professional life when picking for your portfolio and don't just rely on the biased opinions of others. I learned this from Enron when the analysts were out and out lying to the brokers and advisors.

You on the other hand, seem to swallow the left's playbook and talking points, hook line and sinker.

Shrek: Althouse is like an onion. Donkey: She stinks? Shrek: Yes, no! Donkey: Oh she makes you cry? You leave her out in the sun and she starts sprouting little white hairs? Shrek: No, Althouse has layers, an onion has layers. Donkey: Oh they both have layers. You know not everyone likes onions...cakes, everyone likes cakes, cakes have layers. Shrek: I dont care what everyone likes, Althouse is not like a cake. Donkey: You know what else everybody likes? Parfaits. Have you ever met a person, you say, "Let's get some parfait," they say, "Hell no, I don't like no parfait"? Parfaits are delicious. Shrek: No! You dense, irritating, miniature beast of burden! Althouse is like an onion! End of story. Bye-bye. See ya later.

What interests me about this whole thing is not what it tells us about Palin, but what it tells us about liberals and conservatives as those groups are known today. Back when I was a liberal, the idea was that liberals were kinder, more tolerant, more forgiving of fault and willing to let someone learn from their mistakes and have a second chance, whereas conservatives were seen as mean, cold, unforgiving, intolerant, willing to throw unmarried teenage moms in the snow and cut sons who go hippie out of their wills type of thing. Now things seem to be reversed: liberals are quick to condemn, swift to cut off the hands that displease them (remember that Whole Foods guy who wrote something about maybe Obama's health plan wasn't all that? I wonder how high the pile of discarded canvas Whole Food totes got at the recycling center...), harsh towards their enemies ("You're against gay marriage? She's a witch, she's a witch -- stone her, stone her!"), and not at all interested in being tolerant of beliefs other than their own "correct" ones (if I were a kid with liberal parents I'd be as terrified to tell them if I had any conservative leanings as a gay kid would be to come out to his Baptist kinfolk).

Whoops -- forgot to add: today conservatives are the ones going "Aw, give Palin a second chance! Mistakes are a sign of growth" etc. We even (well, a lot of us) initially were willing to give Obama a chance -- after all, if it made so many black people happy, and happy liberals are a fraction less annoying than whiny liberals, etc.

"A far more interesting question would be: why is there such a noticeable difference in tone between male and female reactions to this woman. (He wrote, generalizing like crazy, but hey it saves time, no?) In my experience woman don't dislike her, they seemingly want to destroy her. "

Centraman, let me give my favorite explanation for things like this, and I say it from experience, being a woman myself.

Women are bitches. Plain and simple.

Think about that. Let it settle.

Okay. Women are even bigger bitches when the woman in their gun sights is better looking and hooked up with a stud who's every woman's dream man. Todd's no bimboy.

That's the simple answer. A more complex and convoluted one with a Latinized vocabulary can and will be distilled to the same point.

This thing about Palin hatred is media driven. Americans don't know Sarah Palin. I've followed her with interest and like very much what I hear so I will vote for her in 2012. On Convention night, Americans were treated to an inspiring, charismatic speaker and over achiever who whittled Barack Obama down to size in a few sentences. She took that boy to the woodshed and waxed his ass; when she was done, she left him naked for America to see.

The price Sarah Palin is paying for that is that the media has ginned up hatred of her by pushing a number of lies. The gotcha journalists were never interested in hearing Sarah Palin's story. If they had listened and had allowed America to hear, Barack the Bonehead would be in Chicago where he belongs.

We are often told that Sarah Palin is divisive. What, pray tell, has she done to divide America? Nothing. By showing America what an empty suit Obama is, Palin earned media hatred, and their and Obama's undying wrath leading to her constant persecution by them all.

Her governing record, like Dubya's, was all about unity, unlike Obama's which was all about virulent partisanship.

So the Dems and the media created a fictional Sarah Palin and many Americans, unthinking, bought it. Now, Sarah Palin has written her own book, and Americans are free to find out about her what the media had no interest in telling them.

Again, Palin has managed another end run around the despicable media and their puppet, Obama.